Overview

We like trucks with a simple and honest work ethic. Toyota’s 70 Series WorkMate is a good example. Just big, basic and strong with no frills. Designed to do a tough job and not afraid to get dirty doing it – on the outside and inside.

Ford’s Ranger XL is another hard worker in the 70 Series mould. Built with a back-to-basics approach with none of the bling found in its more glamorous and expensive XLT and WildTrak stable-mates.

And it’s that minimalist, no-frills persona that makes the entry level Ranger XL Double Cab a smart buy for a variety of potential customers. Beyond the obvious appeal for government and private fleet buyers, it’s also got plenty of appeal for farmers, tradies and even urban families that value low maintenance practicality.

Park the Ranger XL alongside the XLT and its lack of eye candy is immediately apparent. However, beyond such a simple visual comparison, there are a number of financial and performance reasons why the Ranger XL might well be a better buy depending on your intended usage.

Our test vehicle

The 16 valve, common rail, direct injection 2.2 is the smaller of the two turbo-diesels available for this model, with the other being the five-cylinder 3.2 litre Duratorq unit.

Both are from Ford’s ‘Puma’ engine family and according to Ford the 2.2 litre is the same engine fitted to the current Transit Van.

XL vs XLT

So what do you miss out on? Well, where there’s chrome on the XLT you get flat black and body-colour. Where there’s carpeting, you get vinyl flooring. Where there’s alloy wheels, you get painted steel rims. And where there’s a tubular chrome sports bar in the load bed you get a body-coloured load rack/window protector.

Have a look at the standard equipment lists for both models and the XL buyer also misses out on some of the more useful stuff like the XLT’s cooled console box, third power point in the rear of the console, rain-sensing windscreen wipers, tow bar (although our test truck was fitted with one), side steps, auto headlights and fog lights.

However, even with the 2.2 litre engine – which has one less cylinder and is 1.0 litre smaller in capacity than the XLT’s five cylinder version – you do get everything else that makes the Ranger XLT 4×4 such a formidable competitor in the one-tonne ute market.

These including air-conditioning, front, seat side and side curtain airbags, Dynamic Stability Control (DSC) incorporating ABS, Hill Launch Assist, Trailer Sway Control, Emergency Brake Assist and Hill Descent Control. And you get a bigger payload than XLT as well.

And in manual form, Ford claims that it also drinks less diesel than the XLT (8.1L/100 kms vs 9.4L/100 kms) but we always take these factory supplied figures (from any manufacturer) with more than a grain of salt.

We averaged 9.7L/100 kms during our time with the XL, which was a combination of stop-start city driving and sealed and unsealed rural roads, with and without loads. The best we saw was 8.4 after a long freeway run, so it shows how ‘ideal’ these quoted figures are.

Even so, with one less cylinder and one litre less cubic capacity than the 3.2, it has to be more economical which is another plus.

The Double Cab’s load floor length is 1549mm and the width between the wheel housings is 1139mm, meaning standard 900mm-wide builder’s sheets of plywood, gyprock etc will lay flat between them with the gate down, but the wider 1200mm sheets and up won’t.

The standard 1100 x 1100mm Asian pallet, which is increasingly common in this part of the world, will slot neatly between them. There’s also plenty of stout tie-down points in the box to secure your load.

What we found particularly useful at the front of the pick-up bed was the painted frame that serves as both a load frame and rear window protector.

Sure, it doesn’t look as sexy as the XLT chrome tubular roll bar but it’s a lot more useful if you’ve got long lengths of wood, electrical conduit, concrete reinforcing mesh or PVC pipes you need to carry. The pivoting brackets mounted on each side swing up and lock into position to stop these long items from falling off the sides after you’ve strapped them in place.

What’s it like to drive?

You may be thinking that being smaller in engine capacity, the 2.2 litre four-pot XL would feel a bit sluggish compared to its more powerful 3.2 litre five-pot sibling. We can happily report that’s not the case.

The 2.2 produces 110kW @ 3700 rpm compared to the 3.2’s 147 kW @ 3000 rpm – a deficit of 37 kW. Of more importance to us though are the torque figures; 375 Nm @ 1500-2500 rpm for the 2.2 compared to 470 Nm @ 1500-2750 rpm for the 3.2 – a difference of 95 Nm.

37 kW less power and 95 Nm less torque seems like a lot on paper, but as we discovered with our recent test of the Isuzu D-Max Crew Cab one-tonner, power to weight ratio makes a big difference to a truck’s throttle response and overall agility despite having less cubic engine capacity and torque than some of its competitors.

When Ford confirmed that the Transit Van and XL 2.2 turbo-diesels were the same, it put an instant smile on our dials because having driven the latest Transit Van we were already aware of the excellence of this 2.2 litre four as a light truck engine.

It not only has an abundance of low down torque and pulling power, but it’s the way the torque is delivered that is impressive. The response is instant whenever you get back on the throttle pedal. It’s a smooth and unrelenting surge with none of the turbo lag or comparatively sluggish response we have experienced in other small bore turbo-diesels.

We didn’t get a chance to do any heavy towing during our brief time with this truck, so we can’t comment on how the 2.2 performed with a big load hanging off the tow-ball. We suspect that the 95 Nm difference between the 2.2 and 3.2 would be more noticeable when towing, so we would appreciate any feedback from people that have towed big loads with the 2.2.

You don’t need to rev the 2.2 beyond 2500 rpm between shifts, because when you pick up the next cog it’s generally in that 1500-2500 rpm maximum torque band.

The six-speed manual gearbox is light and precise to use, well matched to the engine’s torque characteristics with a useful selection of ratios for everything this truck needs to do. The overdriven top gear is handy on the highway too, where you can sit at 110 km/h with only 2000 rpm on the tacho.

We didn’t venture too far off road in the XL, largely due to the road tyres fitted to our test vehicle. They don’t tend to grip very well, particular when you strike mud and the shallow treads quickly clog up. Given the amount of rain at the time, we decided not to get too adventurous.

The fact that the XL doesn’t come with the XLT’s Locking Rear Differential (which is not available as an option) shows where Ford is aiming this workhorse and what its typical buyer needs.

Conclusion

If you want a hard working Ford Ranger that can do pretty much everything the XLT can do without all the bells and whistles, the 2.2 litre manual XL Double Cab Pickup represents a massive saving of around $10,000 in purchase price over the 3.2 XLT version (XL $47,986 vs XLT $57,768 based on Ford drive-away estimates).

Even if you fitted an aftermarket tow bar and replaced the ‘poverty pack’ appearance of those steel wheels with a nice set of Ford Accessory or aftermarket alloys and chunkier off road tyres, you’d still be way ahead.

And you never have to worry about scratches on your premium metallic paint. Or muddy boots, beach sand or sticky kids’ stuff ruining your carpet. There’s a lot be said for back-to-basics in this market segment. TJ

Everything you want to know about this Ranger and all other Ranger models can be found at Ford Australia’s official website at www.ford.com.au If you click ‘Links’ on Truck Jungle’s menu bar, you’ll find Ford’s website address at the top of the Links page and it will take you directly to its website.

I suspect that the current LR Defender models also use the same Puma 2.2 ltr engine ( which replaced the previous Puma 2.4 ltr one) and they also perform excellently re power to weight so it must be regarded as a very suitable engine.

The company just bought a Mazda BT 50 Hi-Rider Automatic with the 2.2 litre engine – same running gear as the Ford Ranger. We tow a tandem trailer with a Dingo loader weighing total 2000kg and it tows really well and not bad on fuel. The consumption increased by 0.8 litre per 100km. overall very happy with the unit – very luxurious for a standard work ute.

That’s really useful feedback, Walt. Much appreciated. We know the 2.2 is a great performer in the Transit van, so to hear that you’re also happy with its performance in the BT50 towing two tonnes of Dingo loader with a minimal increase in fuel consumption proves its excellent versatility as a light truck engine. We’d welcome more feedback on the 2.2 in towing applications.

The company I work for just bought eight 2.2 litre Hi Rider Rangers to test on the road before committing to buy for the rest of the fleet. All have serious lag during take off, very dangerous when you need to avoid accidents.
They do tow loads well and they look good too. But seriously, Ford won’t help the hand that feeds them. Fix this common problem and the Ranger would be the perfect ute.

Interesting feedback Phill. We are surprised to hear of this lag on take off because one of the characteristics we really liked about the 2.2 in the Ranger we tested was the lack of turbo lag and the surge of torque that was immediately on tap. If any readers agree with Phil’s comments please let us know. The more ‘field intelligence’ we can gather on these vehicles, the better.

Just taken the new work ute for a run and agree with Phil. It has some serious lag problems, extremely dangerous. I will be asking for it to be returned to find the problem. This will cause accidents, especially at intersections.

Mark, I assume the previous sender might be referring to the auto. I live in Thailand and have the 2.2 auto and the initial lag from start is terrible. Anything from 2-3 seconds if you put your foot down firmly. Initially nothing happens and it then launches itself because by the time it takes off you have your foot to the floor. Very dangerous if you have to get out of the way in a hurry.

Hey guys. Have been a Ford diesel man for 22 years. I have just retired and yes I can hear you from here – Land Rover !!!!! Anyway we are going on an extended two year trip around Australia. Can any of you Ford Transit and Ranger guys tell me about the ford 2.2 CRD? Thank you very much. Dave.

Just bought a 2nd hand 2013 PX Ranger 4×4 2.2 6 speed auto with 15000km on the clock. I have a bad left leg so had to get rid of my manual Hi-Lux 4×4 1999 2.7 petrol (loved that car). Can’t say a bad word about my Hi-Lux but the Ranger is more comfortable, drives more like a car, has more grunt, is bigger everywhere, uses less fuel. I have experienced no lag at all. I find it very responsive. Cheers Chris.

I picked up my 2014 2.2L auto dual cab ford ranger XL a month ago to be my new work ute. I love the truck but the lag is horrible especially with full tool boxes. Makes it difficult to enter a round about in peak traffic or getting a quick take off at an intersection (unless its down hill) does anyone know a way to fix it or has anyone tried anything? Eg. Chip or straight through exhaust etc.. any help would be appreciated. Thanks

Thanks for your feedback on the 2.2 auto guys. I’ve heard this complaint from several owners now, so this is clearly a major shortcoming given the potential danger it can cause in typical traffic situations. It appears to be a lack of torque as the 3.2 auto doesn’t suffer the same lag problem, which leaves me doubting the 2.2′s ability to tow what Ford says it can tow.

Hi Mark, I have a 2.2 Auto 4×4 PX ranger dual cab chassis. While I agree that there can be a lag on take off I find that you can definitely drive around this issue. I find that if you just feed on the throttle progressively the take off is fine, it seems that if you just floor the throttle the lag appears much worse. Maybe because I own this vehicle my driving style is different, what I mean is that many of the complaints seem to be “my company has just bought x amount of 2.2 auto rangers and the lag etc etc”. I also tow a 17 foot Coromal caravan and find the performance and economy very good. Previously I towed with a PK 3.0 lit ranger and the PX is definitely a better tow vehicle. Cheers Peter

I have a 2012 PX Hi Rider 2.2 4×4 6 speed auto. It has lag at take-off as well, then at times finds it hard to select 6th even at 90 km/h. I have to change manually sometimes to get 6th gear. Very sluggish In soft sand as well. Taking it to Gibb River next year, so will give it a good test in all conditions.

Thanks Adam. Make sure you let us know how your 2.2 auto performs on the Gibb River trip. Certainly there is enough anecdotal evidence here from 2.2 auto Ranger owners to know that there are question marks over certain aspects of this vehicle’s performance. Ford Australia does not have a 2.2 auto available on its media test fleet, so Truck Jungle is not able to analyse what the problem is for ourselves. The fact that there is no 2.2 auto Ranger available for media evaluation, though, raises some interesting questions in this context. We will try to get some answers.

David, if you are looking to travel as I am, the fuel economy is pretty good. I regularly get over 800 kms from the standard tank and it is a comfortable ute to drive on the road. You can easily cruise at 110 km/h with the cruise control on and will pull up most hills without changing down from sixth gear. I test-drove the Isuzu D-Max before the Ranger and I found the D-Max too sluggish, even as a manual. The Ranger gets up to the speed limit with ease. So I would recommend this vehicle to anyone.

The 3.2 Ranger feels more sluggish than the 3.0 D-Max when I tried them both. On paper the Ranger does have more power but when it comes to real world performance it’s a different story. And there are some reviews which have tested 0-100 km/h acceleration of the D-Max and 3.2 Ranger and the D-Max is faster, maybe because its lighter by maybe 150-200 kgs.

Hi all. I have a 2.2 Auto and I have turbo laaaaag. Ford says that’s just how they are. Also mentioned above, doesn’t select 6th gear often and sluggish in sand. Great car, but get a manual because autos don’t work with this motor.

Hi all. I had a 2.2 litre automatic Single Cab 4×2 and found that it had turbo lag down low and was very noisy on the inside. Fuel range was about 650 kms. It drove really well and had good towing capabilities. Also have driven a 3.2 litre 4×4 Dual Cab XLT. Very quiet inside, drove like a car and had a better fuel range of about 780 kms. A great tow vehicle and also great to 4WD in the high country.

I’m currently driving a 2.2 litre 4 door (dual cab) tray-back as a work truck and yes, the lag is pretty bad. As mentioned, if you floor it trying to cut into traffic, the lag seems worse – scary even. You have to wait for a large enough opening and ease into the throttle. I love the seats and the way it drives. I’ve had Hiace and Hilux work vehicles and they killed my back. The Ford is much better for me. It’s also quieter. If Ford will fix the lag problem, this Ranger will be a great truck.

Hi Victor. Thanks for adding your personal experiences to this discussion. Unfortunately after unsuccessful attempts to get a 2.2 auto from Ford to experience what you guys are saying about it, Truck Jungle has been advised that there will be no Rangers available for review until the upgraded models are released mid-year. Hopefully Ford has got the message loud and clear about the throttle lag on the 2.2 auto and addressed it in the new models. We’ll update you guys as soon as we get to drive one.

Tom, We found the 2.2 litre manual was good to drive, with excellent throttle response and none of the lag issues being reported here about the automatic models. As you can read in our road test, the torque curve for the 2.2 is well matched to the six-speed manual’s gearing. It sounds like the automatic transmission is the problem. As mentioned above, we hope Ford has listened to customer feedback on this issue and improvements will be made.

I am a motor dealer. We sell a wide range of second hand late model standard and site-spec utes. We are re-selling two Ranger 2.2 autos. I tend to agree with Victor. I have sold a considerable amount of PK Rangers with the 3.0ltr motor, both auto and manual, which I think drive and perform very well. I also find the turbo lag on the (PX) 2.2 annoying. Apart from that, I think it’s a great ute. I’m an auto fan in commercial utes and most I admit perform pretty well. The 2.2 Ranger is very car-like to drive and freeway cruising is effortless. The one I’m using at present is a site-spec 2.2 dual cab 4×4 which is built a lot heavier than a standard version. It has traveled 103,000 kms and would have done a fair amount of work in its time. It’s still in great shape and apart from the turbo lag, which I can drive around, it performs very well. This is the first 2.2 Ranger I have had, so a new experience for me.

After a lot of effort in finding any Ford XL Ranger 2.2 forums, I finally found one. This site is great. I’m from the Philippines where the only option for an XL is a 2.2 4×4 M/T or a 4×2 M/T. I just paid for an XL 2.2 4×4 M/T. It was just shipped and is on its way to me. Will try to share whatever experience I can with it.Though most issues raised here are from the A/T, I had a great read with the M/T(the unit tested by the author)and from what I reckon there are no issues, right? All good feedback? Very excited now to drive mine.

Thanks Choy. We welcome any feedback from owners no matter where they live, so your experiences with the 2.2 Ranger manual in the Philippines will be of great interest. We really enjoyed our road test of the 2.2 manual and we’re sure you’ll like this truck, too. The gearing of the six-speed gearbox is well matched to the torque curve of the engine and we found it had excellent throttle response in all situations. Look forward to hearing from you after you take delivery.

Hi Mark. I am currently on a trip through the Flinders Ranges with my PX 4×4 2.2 auto Ranger. Have done quite a few 4×4 tracks including sand, creek travel and hills. I am accompanied by a Land Cruiser 100 Series V8 petrol and so far have not had any trouble keeping with him. Fuel economy towing a 17-foot Coromal caravan has been exceptional, averaging 12.5 litres per 100kms. Since my original comment I would agree the lag is undesirable and if Ford put up a fix I would be seeking it. However, it does not stop the smile on my face at how the Ranger currently performs.

Thanks Peter. Great to hear you’re enjoying the performance of your Ranger – 12.5L/100 kms towing a van is exceptionally good economy. I’ve been reading some early product info on the Ranger II due for release later this year, but there is no mention of any improvements being made to the 2.2 auto. If that’s the case, I reckon there’s a great opportunity for one of the aftermarket performance companies to develop an upgrade kit for the auto tranny, including perhaps a replacement torque converter with a different stall speed to improve acceleration from standing starts. And maybe some re-mapping of the ECU to sharpen up the shift points and make the whole thing more responsive. Given the number of complaints we’ve heard about the excessive lag on take off, I’m sure there would be a long line of customers for such an upgrade.

I’m hearing you guys loud and clear. Also own a 2.2 auto. It is terrifying off the line for all the wrong reasons. I’ll end up dead one day trying to turn across traffic. Plant the foot down hard and bloody nothing for a few seconds, then the turbo spools up and a big surge of power all too late. The only way around it is to ride the brake whilst bringing up the revs to take off with any gusto. Auto also makes weird noises. Zipping noise whilst driving. Sometimes never, other times it never stops zipping. Also makes same noise when just switched off. Ford service dealer blew me off, saying all normal. Worst decision ever listening to motor journos bagging manual box and saying auto superior. Pussies.

Hey guys, any more info on towing with the PX 2.2L would be appreciated. I tow a 2.0 tonne horse float with gear and horses. It would be up near the 3.0 tonne weight. Will the four cylinder do it, or would I be better off sticking to the 3.2L?

I recently had a drive of the latest Series II PX Ranger 2.2 auto and I must say its sounds like a vast improvement on the Series I version. I say it ‘sounds’ like it because I never got to drive the Series I version that you guys are talking about, but I did not experience any noticeable turbo lag from a standing start, so Ford must have been listening to what lots of people like you guys have been saying. I’d like to hear some feedback from other readers who’ve driven the Series II 2.2 auto.

I have recently bought a 2016 Ford Ranger 2.2L auto and the problem still exists. Sometimes it takes some seconds before there is any throttle response at all. Very dangerous in intersections as you never know when the car will start to move. Has anyone heard how this can be fixed?

Thanks Per-Erik. If you’re talking about the latest PXII Ranger then your feedback is a bit of a mystery to us. As mentioned above, we have driven the latest PXII 2.2L auto and didn’t experience the throttle response delay you mention, which judging by reader feedback here was a major problem in the original PX. More feedback on this issue from PXII owners would be appreciated. From our test drive we thought Ford had it licked.

I had a drive recently of the latest PX MkII model with 2.2 auto and didn’t experience any low speed lag issues. I think the problem with the previous model could have been something as simple as a software glitch in the auto transmission.

i agree with most comments on the 2.2auto.I bought mine in 2015 and i have regretted that decision.I should have gone for manual instead because of the serious lagging.It has a hissing sound from the turbo which the dealer has failed to diagnose the problem.

Hi. Researching purchasing a Ford Ranger latest model. I tow a 14 ft tri-axle cattle trailer and regularly tow up to 3.5 tonne sometimes plus (oops illegal). Would love to get away with the 2.2 for economy reasons but I fear it may struggle or should I opt for the 3.2? All advice much appreciated. (Ireland)